From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291E059CAF for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E35A421C006; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 530BAE087D for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dra13-4-78-234-166-189.fbx.proxad.net [78.234.166.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96FA1340B28 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:37:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Alexis Ballier To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting =?iso-8859-1?Q?2016-04-10?= Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:37:09 +0200 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4c88545c-44d1-41ff-843c-8313c6c6b21c@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <22273.23505.485029.889112@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <22264.15335.14348.781616@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <22273.23505.485029.889112@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo User-Agent: Trojita/0.6; Qt/5.5.1; xcb; Linux; Gentoo Base System release 2.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: bdf806d8-baaa-48a4-91f4-c6deffc32dd9 X-Archives-Hash: 9aba941bac8d579e9ed767f5324a76b5 On Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:07:13 PM CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time >> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda >> to discuss or vote on. > > I would like the council to follow up on the results of robbat2's > portage repo usage survey: > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/c2ffa62837fd4cbdd42945bf= 57b09b25 > > The following two points should be discussed and possibly be voted on: > > 1. Should we continue providing ChangeLog files in the rsync > distribution? If space is the sole consideration, then, changelogs can be removed from=20 manifests, and $PM default rsync command can exclude '*/*/ChangeLog*' (or,=20= at least, leave the possibility to do it). This solution seems to be what=20 would please everyone since robbat2's survey results can be interpreted in=20= many ways, but for Q2, more than 50% voted "something but only if it were=20 optional". However, I think I recall a nice recap of some infra guy on how much time=20 it took to generate them. IIRC it was bearable at the moment (a few hours)=20= but still slow. Assuming infra hardware stays the same, where will we be in=20= 1, 2 or 5 years wrt to generating changelogs ? Is there something that can=20= be improved on the software side or are we just bound to have slower and=20 slower rsync distribution generation ? If so, how much slower does it get=20 over time ? What I mean there is that if changelog generation takes 5 days then we=20 don't have much of a choice but dropping them. Alexis.